LAWS(KAR)-2012-12-261

STATE Vs. JAMEER PASHA @ BILAL

Decided On December 11, 2012
STATE Appellant
V/S
JAMEER PASHA @ BILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal challenging the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C.No.267/2005 dated 19.1.2007. Based on the charge sheet filed by the Gulpet Police, Kolar, the respondent was tried for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 304B, 302 and 316 of IPC and sections -3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that one Thabasum, daughter of PW1 Chand Pasha was given in marriage to the accused and at the time of marriage there was a demand for Rs.10,000/- as cash, gold ring, wrist watch. Accordingly, the same was satisfied by PW1 and marriage was solemnized on 11.1.2004 and that the deceased Thabasum was subjected to physical and mental cruelty to bring additional dowry of Rs.2000/-, Since she refused to bring Rs.2000/- as additional dowry from PWs.1 and 2, on 2.4.2005 at 11.30 p.m. in the night, accused set fire to her by pouring kerosene and on account of the same she sustained 85% burn injuries. She was shifted to S.N.R.Hospital, Kolar by PWs.1 and 4 and on the same day, for further treatment she was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and she succumbed to the injuries on 8.4.2005. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident she was 9 months old pregnant. Based on the dying declaration of the deceased- Thabsum, charge sheet was filed by Gulpet Police against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 19 and Ex.P1 to P32 and MOs.1 to 4 to bring home the guilt of the accused. After recording the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the incriminating materials emanating from the case of the prosecution, no evidence was led in by the defence. The Sessions Court after considering the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel formulated the following points for its consideration: